Subject: Re: Problem with moderation of messages with patched attached.

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:24:27 +0000

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 13:22, Pavel Borisov <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Message to list pgsql-hackers held for moderation due to 'Size 1MB
>> (1061796 bytes) is larger than threshold 1000KB (1024000 bytes)', notice
>> queued for 2 moderators
>>
> Could you make this limit 2MB at least for authorized commitfest members?
> Thanks!
>

The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different moderation
rules for people in that way I'm afraid.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: https://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

---

From: Pavel Borisov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 17:27:50 +0400

> rules for people in that way I'm afraid.
Maybe then 2MB for everyone? Otherwise it's not so convenient. Lead to
answers before the questions in the thread [1], seems weird.

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CACG%3DezZe1NQSCnfHOr78AtAZxJZeCvxrts0ygrxYwe%3DpyyjVWA%40mail.gmail.com

-- 
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov

Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com <http://www.postgrespro.com>

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:37:35 +0000

> answers before the questions in the thread [1], seems weird.

Then someone will complain if their patch is 2.1MB! How often are messages
legitimately over 1MB anyway, even with a patch? I don't usually moderate
-hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.

I'll ping a message across to the sysadmin team anyway; I can't just change
that setting without buy-in from the rest of the team.

---

From: Aleksander Alekseev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 16:45:55 +0300

Hi Dave,

> Then someone will complain if their patch is 2.1MB! How often are messages legitimately over 1MB anyway, even with a patch? I don't usually moderate -hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.
>
> I'll ping a message across to the sysadmin team anyway; I can't just change that setting without buy-in from the rest of the team.

IMO, current limits are OK. The actual problem is that when the
message gets into moderation, the notice to the author doesn't contain
the reason:

> Your message to pgsql-hackers with subject
> "Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15"
> has been held for moderation.
>
> It will be delivered to the list recipients as soon as it has been
> approved by a moderator.
>
> If you wish to cancel the message without delivery, please click
> this link: ....

Any chance we could include the reason in the message? I foresee that
otherwise such kinds of questions will be asked over and over again.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

---

From: Julien Rouhaud <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:46:47 +0800

> -hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.

It's not common, most people send compressed versions.

Also, gigantic patchsets tend to be hard to maintain and rot pretty fast, so
authors also sometimes maintain a branch on some external repository and just
send newer versions on the ML infrequently.

---

From: Pavel Borisov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 17:47:43 +0400

> -hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.
Hi, Dave!
Authors in the mentioned thread [1] bump into this issue while posting all
11 versions of a patchset. It is little bit more than 1MB. We can try to
use .gz and if this doesn't work we report it again.

> that setting without buy-in from the rest of the team.
Thanks! Maybe this will solve the issue.

[1]

-- 
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 10:17:06 -0500

> Maybe then 2MB for everyone?

Maybe your patch needs to be split up?  You're going to have a hard time
finding people who want to review or commit such large chunks.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Julien Rouhaud <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 23:40:26 +0800

> finding people who want to review or commit such large chunks.

I think it's the total attachment size, not a single file.  So while splitting
up the patchset even more would still be a good idea, compressing the files
before sending them to hundred of people would be an even better one.

---

From: Stephen Frost <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 12:44:12 -0500

Greetings,

> > -hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.

I do pay attention to -hackers and no, it doesn't come up very often.

> use .gz and if this doesn't work we report it again.

This patch set really shoudl be broken down into smaller independent
pieces that attack different parts and not be all one big series of
patches.

Thanks,

Stephen

---

From: Andres Freund <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 11:48:11 -0700

Hi,

> -hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.

I don't think it's actually that rare. But most contributors writing that
large patchsets know about the limit and work around it - I gzip patches when
I see the email getting too large. But it's more annoying to work with for
reviewers.

It's somewhat annoying. If you e.g. append a few graphs of performance changes
and a patch it's pretty easy to get into the range where compressing won't
help anymore.

And sure, any limit may be hit by somebody. But 1MB across the whole email
seems pretty low these days.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

---

From: Andrew Dunstan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 09:52:29 -0400

> seems pretty low these days.

Of course we could get complaints no matter what level we set the limit
at. I think raising it to 2Mb would be a reasonable experiment. If no
observable evil ensues then leave it that way. If it does then roll it
back. I agree that plain uncompressed patches are easier to deal with in
general.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan

---

From: Pavel Borisov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 21:02:02 +0400

>
> оf course we could get complaints no matter what level we set the limit
Thanks, Andrew! I think it will be more comfortable now.

Pavel.